Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk
| Main page | Talk page | Submissions Category, Sorting, Feed | Showcase | Participants Apply, By subject | Reviewing instructions | Help desk | Backlog drives |
- This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
- For questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia, visit the Teahouse.
- For unrelated questions, use the search box or the reference desk.
- Create a draft via Article wizard or request an article at requested articles.
- Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
- Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
| Ask a new question Please check back often for answers. |
| Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions |
|---|
August 8
Review of User:ScabraKing01/sandbox
How do i make a page without it getting deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScabraKing01 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hello ScabraKing01! You have written in your sandbox that you want to put pictures on your wall. Wikipedia doesn't have walls, but you do have a user page at User:ScabraKing01 that you can make look interesting, as long as it's about your Wikipedia activities. If you want real wall, you should try facebook. You can add images to your user page or to other articles that you make by uploading them at Wikimedia Commons first, but they must not be copyrighted pictures. There are already many images there that you can add. There's a good article about images at Wikipedia:Uploading images.
- If you plan to make an article to put into the encyclopedia, you can work on it in your sandbox, which you have already started to do. When it's done, add this to the top of the page: {{subst:submit}}. In this way, it will be reviewed and it may be declined, but it won't be deleted as long as it doesn't have copyrighted material, and you can improve it an submit again until it is right. I am going to remove the submit box from your sandbox, because you haven't yet written your article. Good luck! —Anne Delong (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Graham Wardle I found article in pending with note no-inline. I edited article to put the inline reference and saved it. It does show in history log but do I need to doing something to remove that note in pending list?Heartlandtvfan (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Graham Wardle I found article in pending list with note no-inline. I edited article to include inline references and saved it. Do I need to do something else to remove that note? Thank you Heartlandtvfan (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- I recommend leaving the note so the next reviewer will see it and know the problem has been fixed. LionMans Account (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
My submission for consideration was turned down. I would appreciate some specific direction as to how I can improve the article. I am wondering if what I've done so far was acceptable, but not in significant quantity or possessing appropriate variety (referring to sources quoted mostly). I believe the subject meets some of the requirements that determine notability - #1, 2, 5 and 11.
All my sources are independent of the subject. I suspect that some of the sources are not considered reliable as they were reviews written for sites like AllMusic, PopMatters, etc. - or biographical in nature appearing on a site that awards artists (The Iowa Rock and Roll Hall of Fame specifically). Are reviews in general not considered reliable? Is the use of biographical material inappropriate? Point me in a direction that will benefit me in improving the article. Any help or suggestions that anyone can offer will be appreciated. Thank you!THX1136 (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- There are a couple of problems with this draft. Several of the given sources don't mention the band at all. Conversely, multiple claims are not supported by the given sources, in one case explicitly so ("no source has been located to support this"). The "Otho" section still has no sources at all. I also have doubts about the reliability of some of those sources, especially Rate Your Music, I don't Listen to Punk Anymore and Glorydaze Music. Reviews published with a reputable publisher are considered reliable enough; reliability depends much more on whether the publisher exercises editorial oversight or not. I expect that's not quite easy, but it may be worth the effort to look for additional print sources from the 1980s. Huon (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the input Huon. In my Des Moines Register source article much of what I've included in the article is supported. I do understand the need for other supporting sources and am undertaking to locate additional ones. One thing I've come across is that in many mentions about the group and/or their albums on the internet the same source - AllMusic and "Spaz" Schnee - are quoted almost verbatim. This renders alternate sources unusable in my mind. I do have verbal information to support nearly the whole article, but that is considered original research and thus unusable. Example: I have an email from John Ryan, the producer of the TSOO album, about the single release (the one you mentioned), but I assume I can't use that. I came across an internet source which has an article written by Tom Werman - the producer of the first album - where he comments on that album. From what you've shared with me that article may be a waste of time to even include or use as a source due to it's "unreliable" nature since I cannot know the nature of the editorial oversight.
- From your view how can I judge the reliability of a source on the web? What things should I look for? Most sources I've used are reviews of the albums with brief background on the band that would appear in music reviews. In your mind, how much weight does the Iowa Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction hold as far as notability is concerned? Is that a worthy source? Again, thank you for helping me understand this better. I appreciate your time.THX1136 (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- First of all, sources need not be available online - print sources such as the print editions of newspapers or music magazines are acceptable as well.
- Judging the reliability of online sources is something of an art form. The easiest test is self-description: Do they describe themselves as a news source? Does the website list an editorial staff? Do the staff member profiles show that they have some sort of relevant education or experience, or are they random people with self-granted titles? For example, if they have an editor-in-chief who previously worked as an editor for Rolling Stone that's a very good sign. If they say, "this is a fan-made group blog about great 1980s bands", not so much.
- Another indication is whether the source is commonly cited in other undisputably reliable sources, and if so, how. If the New York Times routinely has statements such as "As reported by John Doe in the Music Rag...", then the Music Rag likely would be reliable. If they write "The gossip site Music Rag alleges that...", that's not so good a sign. If nobody else seems to take note of what that publication writes, ever, that's not a good sign either.
- We have a Reliable sources noticeboard that you can ask in cases of doubt; please be as specific as possible ("Is source X a reliable source for claim Y in article Z's section on W?"). See also WP:Identifying reliable sources.
- A specific example: I Don't Listen To Punk Any More calls itself a blog, it's hosted by blogspot, the author is only identified as "Joe", and he doesn't list any relevant expertise or the like. Verdict: A self-published blog without editorial oversight, not a reliable source. Huon (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your help! I have a better grasp on the topic of sources and their reliability now. Thanks also for pointing me to the pages here that can help also. I appreciate your time.THX1136 (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- From your view how can I judge the reliability of a source on the web? What things should I look for? Most sources I've used are reviews of the albums with brief background on the band that would appear in music reviews. In your mind, how much weight does the Iowa Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction hold as far as notability is concerned? Is that a worthy source? Again, thank you for helping me understand this better. I appreciate your time.THX1136 (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I need some help editing the Article for Creation/Green Building Initiative. It was turned down because it sounded too much like an advertisement. To me it reads like any other Wikipedia article and the majority of the cites sources are third party sources. Could I get some more specific suggestions about how I need to edit this article to get it accepted? Thank you. Hannah 50.53.109.120 (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'd say you cover the GBI's various programs in far too much detail and the GBI itself in far too little. For example, I couldn't even tell when it was founded. And while your sources may be independent, I have doubts about their reliability - in particular, Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source, and links to other articles should not be used as references. Press releases are also not considered reliable, and press releases by the GBI aren't independent either. Huon (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I am in the process of creating a page for Dr. Ezriel Kornel. It says that the material is copy written from Back Talk on Air.com, but it is not infringement, WE are the ones who wrote the copy for backtalkonair.com. All the material is correct and factual. How should we proceed?
- Several issues. First of all you may want to have a look at Wikipedia's guideline on conflicts of interest. Writing about the star of a show you work for is not a good idea. Secondly, unless you released the rights to backtalkonair's content under a free license that allows everybody to re-use and modify it for any purpose, including commercial purposes, copying that content to Wikipedia is still a copyright violation. The website you copied content from says "all rights reserved". Thirdly, all Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject; his own website clearly is not such a source, and its tone is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Thus the content would have to be rewritten significantly, and it's probably easier to rewrite it from scratch than to bother with licensing the copyrighted content. Huon (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
How do I add reviews, and other relevant facts about the artist? Artist profile was declined but the artist has album reviews and airplay internationally.
~Jim Sfarnas Davidjames Entertainment Management ~ ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgsacu (talk • contribs) 17:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- See WP:Referencing for beginners; that page explains how to easliy cite your sources. Huon (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I submitted my first article to wikipedia about two weeks ago. It was rejected. The editor gave so very good feedback. I have totally re-written the article, and am ready to re-submit it. But I do not see any way to re-submit the article. Can you help me re-submit this article? Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoorephd (talk • contribs) 22:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have submitted the draft for you, and I have also gotten rid of the duplicates, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Effective Decision Rate and Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Effective decision rate. At a glance, though, the draft still reads far too much like an essay, with the entire first two paragraphs not mentioning the article's topic at all. Of your three sources only one mentions an "effective decision rate", and that one doesn't discuss it but only mentions it in passing. That's not enough to establish that this topic is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Huon (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
August 9
Hello, My name is Angel Sessions. I put a artical of me on Wikipedia and it was declined. I don't know why, and was'nt given a reason. Please explain to me why my Wikipeia artical was declined. Thank you so much. Angel Sessions — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngelSessions (talk • contribs) 00:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- All Wikipedia content must be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as articles in newspapers or reviews in reputable music magazines. We need such sources both so our readers can verify the article's content and to establish that you are notable enough by Wikipedia's standards to be the subject of an article. If Rolling Stone reviewed your album that may be a good source, but you'll have to provide information so we can find it, either a link if the review is available online, or enough bibliographical information to locate the print magazine in a library. And a single source won't be enough to establish notability - we'll need at least three to five such sources that cover you in some detail. Huon (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi! May i know why my article about Sadara Chemical Company has been rejected — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.89.222.107 (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Because it sings the praises of Sadara without citing any reliable third-party sources: It's unduly promotional. Huon (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi
I had submitted the subject article yesterday (it is my first submission to Wikipedia) and it got rejected for the reason that the reference sources are not authentic enough. I had given the references as company website and a case study published by Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad and I believe these sources are authentic enough. Please clarify how these sources are not good enough and what sources would be considered fine to go ahead?
Arun371 (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Arun Batra (Username: arun371)
- Hello Arun371. You are correct that the rejection message was not as informative as it might have been. You may wish to read WP:VRS which gives some information about the sort of sources that are generally required to establish that a topic is notable enough by Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Also WP:ORG which is Wikipedia's notability guideline specifically for companies and organisations. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sayd Abdulrahman Bafakhy Tangal Memorial Government College
I have two questions 1. can I change the name of article from "Sayd_Abdulrahman_Bafakhy_Tangal_Memorial_Government_College" to "SARBTM Govt College" 2. can I upload college logo into wikipedia page taken from college official website. Kovinmel (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hello Kovinmel. I am not sure that "SARBTM Govt College" is a good name for the article. Although I admit that "Sayd Abdulrahman Bafakhy Tangal Memorial Government College" is rather long too. However, whichever name it ends up as (assuming it is eventually approved), we can create a redirect from the other name as well. So that people looking for either name will find the correct article.
- It will be possible to upload the college logo as a non-free file if the article submission is accepted. However, please wait until it is accepted before doing so. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I need to know more specifically why the above article has been denied again, please. I have been told that it is basically an advert being disguised as a biography and that the only biographical information in the article is the year this person was born.
I fail to see where the advertising in the article is and I need someone's help in pointing it out to me so that I can adjust it. The only mention of any of this person's commercial information is to back information such as the specific details of the theory that he has created in regards to stock market prediction. I used his website as a resource of this theory because he is the best source in explaining his theory, just as if a personal interview had been done. His website is only noted in the sources and is never mentioned in the article itself, even though he has a whole institute that he trains people on his theory through.
His only other commercial information would be the two books that he has written, but there are no links to where one could find these books. His books are used as a resource by those that watch and write about the stock market, in addition to those that trade on the stock market.
The information is written in an unbiased point of view with opposing theory views added, as well as a source being used and pointed out in the article that he is not always right in his predictions. If it was a commercial it would not point this information out as it would not instill much confidence that he could help you make money in the stock market.
The focus of the article is on his theory and how it adds to another theory that has a Wikipedia page(Elliot Wave Theory)in which he is actually mentioned. Yes, his theory is commercial in nature because his contributions are to a financial field and that is how he made his living, but I am not sure how the information is any different or more commercial than that of those that have Wikipedia pages such as; Walt Disney, Stephen King, Robert Prechter, Ralph Nelson Elliot, or Charles Merrill. All of these pages talk about the products that these notable people created and their commercial ventures that are even to this day making someone money.
This is where I need your help. I need to know what is standing out in this article as being too commercial compared to other articles that are already pages.
I am worried that with the huge amount of backlog that there is currently that it was reviewed quickly to try and get through the backlog, instead of being given the time it would have been given if there was not a huge amount of backlog.
Thanks for your help, GlePa GlePa (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- The article is supposed to be about the person, not the theory, and it provides next to no information on the person. Where and when was he educated, for example? Also, you have made the draft significantly worse since I last had a look at it. You removed all the links to the online sources. Compare this old version's references. You blatantly misrepresent the sources when you say he "has been right often enough though that he is closely watched and analyzed" - that's not even close to what the cited source says (that part also reads rather promotional and not encyclopedic). You cite sources that don't even mention him, and sources written by himself or his company. You quote blogs (which are not reliable anyway) at such length that we might run into copyright problems. Huon (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback, conversation on this always makes it easier to correct mistakes that have been made instead of assuming what needs to be corrected.
In regards to what you have pointed out:
1) This person was self taught in this field, he has no educational background to put in the article which is why there is none.
2) The removal of the links to the online sources were an oversight by me in trying to fix the article in the way you directed me to the last time. I put in the sources and did not link them, it was a mistake that is easily fixed by putting the links in. It was not an attempt to try and cover up information.
3) As to the blatant misrepresentation of the particular source that you pointed out, the source clearly states in the title that Neely is a "guru" and links him with all of the other "experts" in the field. The point in which this source appears in the article also clearly points out that Neely is not always right; which is exactly what the article says.
4)I have already defended why I used a source from his company. It was the best source to use as to how he started his work and what his theory details. There is no better source on personal information than from the person themselves. This source was not used to promote Neely, but to provide verification of information on his theory. hi 5)I need you to point out which of the sources do not mention him. Of the 8 sources I used, 7 talk directly about Neely. Source number 2 does not mention Neely as it was not meant to, it was meant as verification of the Elliot Wave theory information that is in this article.
6)Five of the eight source that I used are in no way connected to Neely, they were not written by him, posted by him, or connected in anyway to his company. You pointed this out to me last time and that is the major change that I made to the article.
7)You say that I quote unreliable blogs at such length that we may have a copyright problem. Will you kindly point out which of my 8 sources you feel we will have issues with so that I may correct the issue.
Thank you again for your help on this project, GlePa GlePa (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have copyedited the draft again; I'd prefer not doing so a third time. Let me give your sources the once-over. The first one is his own company, not an independent source. The second doesn't mention Neely. The third is again his own company. The fourth was not subject to editorial oversight (thus it's not reliable) and doesn't say what it's cited for - it neither mentions the "three additions" nor does it state what book people usually refer to. The fifth is a self-published blog without editorial oversight, and again it doesn't confirm the statement about what book most people refer to. I have no idea what the sixth source is, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that it's misrepresented. For comparison, Time named Hitler and Stalin "men of the year", that was not an indication of high regard. Furthermore, I'd expect that the sources for "stock market publications throughout the field" don't actually discuss other publications in the field. I already commented on the seventh source - it's actually the best of the bunch, but it does not at all discuss how often Neely is right or not. The eighth is yet another blog, and almost the entire "Opposing points of view" section is quoted from that source. So there's a single reliable third-party source among the bunch, and that doesn't say what it's cited for - it doesn't really say much at all about Neely. Huon (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
My article was rejected due to citations. I have revamped this article twice now and need help getting it published. I do not understand why it was rejected as it appears to have enough references to approve. Davisj1359 (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Entire sections don't cite any sources. That's not acceptable for the biography of a living person. Other sections cite sources, but the sources don't say what they're cited for. That's worse. As an aside, some proofreading for grammar and spelling may also help, though that's not why the draft was rejected. Huon (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm having problems getting an article submitted - it has been rejected 4 times now - and I'm running out of ideas and energy soon. Please help me!
Here is the aricle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Libert%C3%A6re_Socialister
And here is a discussion I'm having with the lates reviewer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hasteur#Libert.C3.A6re_Socialister
In this discussion, where non of my questions were answered, the reviewer gave giving me a different reason for rejecting the articel than first given. Now the reviewer is telling me that the organization is not notable enough. In an academic repport from Roskilde University (reffered to in the article) it says: "Libertære Socialister - LS (Libertarian Socialists) is the most important and most visible representative of the anarchist trend in Denmark" and there are plenty of references to mainstream media sources. There is already a danish article about this organization: (http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libert%C3%A6re_Socialister) and when I read the Wikipedia notability guideline on Non-commercial organizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CORP#Non-commercial_organizations) I find no reason for rejecting my article - the organization meet both standards mentioned and this additional standard: "Factors that have attracted widespread attention". What is the real reason for rejecting this article and what should I do?
Makhno partisan (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- I just had a look at a couple of the draft's sources, and of those I checked, only the Roskilde University report was a reliable third-party source covering the organizations in any detail. Many other source only mention it in passing, or not at all. Yet others are primary sources such as the organization's own websites, or unreliable sources such as blogs. A lone good source is not enough to establish that the organization is notable. Huon (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I have added multiple authors and sources for my sports mastery article. I don't understand how it is a neogolism if others are already talking about it and its history dates back to the mid 1900's. Please help get my article published. Thanks MarcC75 (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Does any of your sources discuss the term? What's the difference between "Sports Mastery" and "being really good at a certain sport"? Should we also have articles on, say, "Programming Mastery" or "Painting Mastery" or "Language Mastery" if we find a couple of sources that say those things can be mastered?
- There are also spam issues: The Gary Stebbing website serves no purpose in that article except to promote Stebbing. It doesn't even say what it's cited for, and if it did it would still not be a reliable source. Huon (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello! I could use some help!
Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gregory Betts
I'm trying create this entry about the Canadian writer, Gregory Betts, and it keeps getting rejected. I must be vey thick because, though I keep working to improve it, I'm clearly missing the point.
The latest reviewer stated that I was using "Peacock terms."
The only place that I can see that might be this: "His creative work and research all explore the boundaries and limits of avant-garde literary production especially in Canada." Is this "exploring the boundaries" -- which I actually mean as a neutral term, because he does examine extreme practices which are at the 'boundaries' and 'limits' of Canadian literature--the offending phrase?
In terms of references, I have gathered cites and information from national newspapers, regional newspapers, internationally respected website/archive/encyclopedia, etc.
I'm hoping to be able to contribute more articles to Wikipedia but first have to figure out what I'm doing wrong!
Thanks very much for your help and advice.
Garybarwin (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- The example you give is indeed problematic. It sounds just like what you'd expect from a publisher's sales blurb. It also doesn't cite any sources, and I, for one, have no idea what "being at the limits of Canadian literature" is supposed to mean - surely not "writing while close to the US". If he went a little further, would his writings cease to be Canadian literature? If not, why is there a limit? You also use adjectives such as "many" and "numerous" - those are weasel words that sound great without providing any information. Huon (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The article I trying to create, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SightLife, has conflicting messages on it. At the top it says that it has not been submitted for review. Then at the bottom it says that the review is pending. So which is it?
Also, I thought after 4 days and 10 contributions you could self publish. But I didn't find that option. Is that not true?
Thank you, Theworldthroughneweyes (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Kelsie
- The message at the bottom is correct: It's submitted for review. The other message is a relic that should soon be removed by a bot.
- Technically you can move the page into the mainspace. But the draft currently cites far too few reliable sources and sounds unduly promotional. For the second reason alone it would be speedily deleted in the mainspace. You may also want to have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. Since you're closely associated with the topic you write about I'd strongly recommend you instead go through the review process. Huon (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
My team wants to create a Wikipedia page. We submitted a bio with sources including iMDb and a professional website with various news articles and links to other pages.
What may we provide to facilitate this process?
Thank you,
David Goldfarb James Nodvin, Manager T.Posey, Talent Agent
70.197.73.22 (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- First of all you may want to read our guideline on conflicts of interest. IMDb is not considered a reliable source, and I expect neither is the professional website - it's written by yourselves without any editorial oversight, isn't it? The draft's current sources barely mention Goldfarb's name (in fact, one of them doesn't); that's not the kind of coverage that can help to establish that he is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Huon (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Resubmitting Article
Hi,
I had an article rejected a few months ago and I'd like to resubmit it. I have made changes and addressed the issues of concern voiced by the editor. I was able to edit and save the article, but I'm having trouble figuring out how to resubmit it for review. Can you please give me some instructions?
Thank you,
Kathryn Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/YogaSlackers
Kjoyslacker (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have added a draft template to the draft that has instructions for resubmission, but I'd say the draft reads far too promotional. Huon (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
August 10
Hi I need some help editing Wikipedia talk:articles for creation/Dylan Dreyer Because a i would like to see it accepted. This my first time creating a page for a living person. if you could give me some tips or help me edit it, it will much appreciated. ACase0000 (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, your draft needs more reliable, independent sources that show Dreyer is notable. This means coverage in, for example, reliable newspapers and magazines, not the website of Dreyer's employer. Howicus (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Review of User:Penang insider/Engku Isa Al-Husam
Dear expert,how can we make a reference when part of the information is from the wikipedia itselfPenang insider (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia should not be used as a source for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. Howicus (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
August 11
Hi,
Two years ago I submitted a basic description of our company, which was declined. I attempted to find the reason for this, but to no avail. I'm happy to resubmit, but I honestly need to know that the problems are perceived to be. As far as I can see the article is neutral, factual and correct (at time of writing, there a few amends after 24 months). Can you help? Thanks, Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.15.55 (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- That draft cites no independent sources like newspaper articles or articles about the company in reputable trade magazines. We need such sources both to allow our readers to verify the article's content and to establish that the company is notable enough for an encyclopedia article in the first place. The company's own websites don't help with that. Huon (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Amanda Cole
how do i add an image to my article and links to other wikipedia pages mentioned in the article? Stonecolecrazy (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Stonecolecrazy
- For the links see Help:Link; in short, links to other Wikipedia articles are created by double square brackets; [[rhythm and blues]] will give rhythm and blues. If you want the displayed text to differ from the title of the linked article, you can use a "piped" link: [[rhythm and blues|R&B]] will still link to that article but will look like this: R&B.
- Regarding the image, that depends on copyright issues. Did you take the image yourself, do you own the copyright? Are you willing to irrevocably release it under a free license that allows everybody to re-use and modify it for any purpose, including commercial purposes? Then you can upload it to the Wikimedia Commons via their Upload Wizard. Once it's uploaded, the picture tutorial explains how to add it to an article. If you didn't take the image yourself, then whoever owns the copyright would have to release the image under a free license; see WP:Requesting copyright permission on how to request that and how to prove that the image has been freely licensed. If the image hasn't been released under a free license it likely won't be acceptable for Wikipedia because Cole is alive and a free image could be produced. Huon (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
How do you make an article to go on Wikipedia, because I edit my stuff and do other things but seriously, WHEN DO YOU MAKE YOUR ACTUAL ARTICLE!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stitch1100 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- You have written a draft, and you can submit it for a review by following the instructions in the "currently not submitted for review" message box. The draft's topic, however, seems to be made up - I am not aware of any war with this combination of belligerents, and I have no idea what "Ryadaho" is supposed to be. You also don't give a date for this war and provide no other context. I tried to look up Naveen's book and failed. Thus your draft appears to be a hoax and will not be accepted. Huon (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
August 12
Hello There,
I want to write an article about my company with a neutral viewpoint suitable for wikipedia. Can anyone help me to create such article? The company Website is www.celmetro.com
I will be more that happy to answer questions regarding this company.
Sincerely,
Francis
Francis1986 (talk) 10:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- If you're looking to create a new article, I recommend the WP:Article wizard, which takes you through the process step by step. Or, if you want another editor to create it for you, try WP:Requested articles, but that can be a slow process. Howicus (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Copyright Information query
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Flexenclosure
Hi -my entry was rejected, but not quite sure why. Can you tell me the copyright issues involved and what I need to do to address them?
Thanks.
Best wishes
Ian 15:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianphillipson (talk • contribs)
- There doesn't appear to be a copyright issue with that page. The article was rejected because Flexenclosure did not seem to be notable enough. The relevant guideline is WP:CORP. I think the draft was rejected because the sources either seem unreliable or only mention Flexenclosure in passing. Oh, and by the way, press releases aren't good sources for notability because they were written by the company. Howicus (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Amellondon (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Hello,
i came across your contact details on Wikipedia.
i am a new user on wiki and my account hasn't yet been confirmed id like to kindly ask you can you confirm it for me and instruct me on how to use the site.
i am wanting to upload a article on to Wikipedia however not sure of how to use the site and were i upload.
would appreciate your help and assistance.
my account is amellondon
regards Amel
- The best place to go is the Teahouse, which is set up to deal with new user questions. Click here to go to it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- To write a new article, have a look at the Article Wizard. For a general introduction to editing Wikipedia you may want to have a look at the tutorial. Huon (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I have been trying for months to create a page for Countess Marjorie de Aguirre. My submissions have been rejected now on numerous occasions, either for "not notable" or lack of references. Marjorie de Aguiree was more than notable (and more so than many people who have wiki entries), and I have referenced a good deal of her life and her activities through newspaper articles and other legitimate sources.
What more needs to be done to get the page approved? Thanks.
Cdesantis18 (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- If she was notable, these sources don't show it. Several are primary sources. Others are mere celebrity gossip. Significant parts of the draft, including most of her espionage work, don't cite any sources at all. Huon (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
August 13
Hi - I had a quick question...the top of the page says that my article is pending review (yellow box) and the top says it has not been submitted for review. (grey box).
This is confusing. Can you confirm that you are seeing that it was submitted for review from your side?
Thanks very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sg75900 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- The draft is submitted. As long as there's a yellow box, you can ignore any gray boxes. Howicus (talk) 01:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I was searching for Alvarez and Marsal, AlixPartners and FTI consulting for a work project, and it took a while tofind this page which doesn't seem finished, but also isnt in the main section. It looks like someome did some work, will this page move to the main section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.1.203.3 (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- The page is currently submitted for review. If it is accepted, it will be moved to mainspace. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I am having trouble using the references to cite my sources so I kinda put them within the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kensikora (talk • contribs) 04:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- The article as it currently stands is simply not encyclopedic. From reading through it, I get the impression that FiberGlassics is a website about boats, as outlined in this article in Boating Magazine. This source is an excellent one to start with, and you should find other book or magazine sources similar to that, and write your article around it. Nobody cares about when the ___domain was registered, and who runs the website, and it's counter-balanced by that magazine report saying Kelly Wood made an annual loss of $5,000 on the website. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Review of User:Jamieh100/sandbox
where do you add the wikipdeia title/name? Jamieh100 (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Your submission has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hardtec Stainless Steel. It has also been declined as it doesn't reference any reliable sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Review of User:Christopher Sean Webb/sandbox
Hi,
how do you link to 'categories' within an article ?
Christopher Sean Webb (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- You use the syntax
[[Category:My category name]]. See Help:Category for more information. However, your article as it stands has more serious problems, as a large proportion of text was copy and pasted from this website, which is a copyright violation, so I had to delete it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Resend Edits
Hello, can you please re-send me the edits for this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Carl_Ronald_Kahn
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carl Ronald Kahn
I would like to make the edits and then resubmit the page.
Thanks.
Elliot735P (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- You can click on "Resubmit" in the "Submission declined" box, which will take your submission to review. If you can verify Kahn has been Professor of Medicine at Harvard, he is probably notable per our guidelines for notability of academics. However, a large amount of content and sources appears to be research done by Kahn, not articles or papers about him. I would trim this information down, as a large amount of references will take time to distill, and cause delays for your submission to be reviewed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I have tried to submit this article for review several times, but I continue to get a dialog box stating the article has not been submitted for review. Is there a way to submit the article?
Inner3 (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- There is a grey button with the text "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!" on that box. Click on that, and your article should be queued for review. However, I would advise you not to do this, as the submission does not appear to be backed with reliable sources and will likely be declined. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I cant tell if my article is actually up for review. Is it actually up? How long does it usually take for a review?
Thanks for your help.
Patrick Santa216.178.108.233 (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, it's up for review. Check the bottom of the page. It might take up to two weeks for your article to be reviewed. Howicus (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi there,
I've been trying to upload a page on Joe Cross for months and it keeps getting rejected! I have been told it sounds too much like an advertisement, but I have edited it numerous times since and it is still getting rejected.
Can you please be more specific about the changes I need to make in order for it to be approved?
Many thanks!
Sophie
(Fruitandvegies78 (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC))
I am unclear how to provide more reliable sources for this article; to us the sources are reliable. We need someone to help us.
68.56.201.191 (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
August 14
Hello, I just read that my article was declined. Can you tell me more about this decision?
Thank you, Tracey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.42.117.111 (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi
I'm Sathish here and i'm a new user for wiki and i'm really not wondered or out curiosity to ask this question as i mentioned i'm a new user.
I have created a couple of articles (Biography) as mentioned by Wiki users, so please let me know the proper procedure for creating articles of this type as the person (about the person to whom i've created article) does'nt have any book kind of references or so kind of references.
Thank you